COMMENTARY – When I set out to write about the Justina Pelletier case, I thought I’d be saying things like, “reading between the lines, the parents appear quite sinister.” But that’s not the story – at least not yet. Despite scratching every surface I could think of, I’m left largely mystified. So rather than write about what I think is going on, I’ve decided to pose questions that, if answered, would help all of us better understand how a seemingly healthy child went to Boston’s Children’s Hospital for the flu, and never went home because Children’s admitted her to a locked psychiatric unit.

Like most parents in Massachusetts, I can’t assume that sadistic doctors needlessly ripped a child from the arms of her loving parents. Nor can I believe that a highly respected doctor from Tufts, who disagrees with Children’s, is an idiot who saw mitochondrial disease where he should have seen abuse. This story will not be resolved by people lining up against, or in favor of, Children’s vs. Tufts.

It can be resolved, however, by fuller disclosure of information. For example:

1. Why didn’t the parents take action a year ago when Justina was first admitted to a psychiatric ward at Children’s? I can see waiting a few days or even weeks for everybody involved to have a chance to read about and understand mitochondrial disease, but a year?

2. What’s attorney Barry Pollock’s role in all of this? The well-known former federal prosecutor says he’s handled lots of “these cases,” and that the parents’ rights are being violated. Maybe so, but what does he mean by “these cases”? He describes himself as a criminal defense attorney who specializes in representing people charged with or under investigation for criminal activity. Is he representing Justina’s parents? If so, why? They say they’ve been falsely accused of “medical child abuse” so nobody would blame them if they hired a criminal defense lawyer, but not revealing that they’ve hired a criminal attorney would be very suspicious. Someone should ask and they should answer.

3. Why are religious groups injecting themselves into the court case? Some religious families shun medical care in favor of faith-based healing, and that’s fine so long as it doesn’t cause serious harm to a child. But Justina’s family didn’t have a history of shunning or seeking medical care based on religion.

4. Why on Earth is the ACLU threatening legal action against the judge’s gag order? If they’re correct that the gag order is unconstitutional, they should help the parents file an appeal. Blabbing on and on about freedom of speech gets the parents nowhere and makes the ACLU’s involvement seem strategic.

Page 2 of 2 - 5. Most parents would gladly violate a gag order to protect their child, even if it meant going to jail for contempt. But the Pelletiers violated the gag order only to release carefully selected information. If there is another side to the story, we aren’t hearing it because everyone else in the case is obeying the gag order and respecting confidentiality laws.

It’s hard to believe this story at face value, but if the Pelletiers are telling the truth, we’re all at risk of losing our children to a nutty doctor with a hunch. And if they aren’t telling the truth, Children’s is foolish for not leaking information because they’re going to start losing patients and profits. The fact that Children’s has leaked nothing thus far suggests there’s no there there, and the parents are telling the truth.

At this point, Justina’s parents are the only ones who can help the public gain a better understanding of the truth, and the public won’t support the family for long if they release only certain information. It’s tempting to believe the parents when they say Children’s Hospital effectively stole their daughter, but even without knowing more it’s obvious that a whole team of people not associated with Children’s, including a judge, determined Justina needed protection from her parents.

If the Pelletiers want their daughter back, they have to explain why a judge – not Children’s – got it wrong, which isn’t possible unless they release all the documents, including the so-called “51A and B” child abuse reports. If they refuse, it doesn’t mean Justina was abused, but it does mean they may have something to hide.

Wendy Murphy is adjunct professor of law at New England Law|Boston and a well-known television legal analyst. A former prosecutor, Murphy specializes in the representation of crime victims in civil and criminal litigation. Her first book “And Justice For Some” was published in 2007 and was released in paperback in 2013. Read more of her columns at wendymurphylaw.com.